Merged: Hulsey presents research arguing WTC7 not brought down by fires/University of Alaska

User Name

Remember Me?

Password

Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

Update: Tune in at 8 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, September 6, 2017, to watch the livestream of Dr. Leroy Hulsey’s presentation from the University of Alaska Fairbanks. There he will present the findings and conclusions of the study detailed in his team’s September 2017 progress report, which will be issued the same day.

A draft report of the study will be released in October or November 2017 and will be open for public comment for a six-week period, allowing for input from the public and the engineering community. A final report will then be published in early 2018.

The public comment period is also going to be interesting. I think some folks around here can help the UAF team out by making sure top flight structural engineers who have actually published on these topics have a chance to provide their comments...

What??
"A draft report ... will be open for public comment for a six-week period, allowing for input from the public and the engineering community. A final report will then be published in early 2018."

They are doing it exactly like NIST did, don't they? Instead of making the entire 2-year process transparent so the public stays informed on progress throughout.

By releasing it to the "community" for review and announcing a publication date, they are in fact saying that they have abandoned the promise of submitting to a good peer-reviewed journal.

You mean, deciding the conclusion in advance, then writing a report to support that conclusion?

Dave

__________________Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

To wit - Mark F posted this a year ago. I snipped the lengthy quote down to the bits I just talked about, the broken promises:

Originally Posted by Mark F

I feel it might be constructive to revisit the beginning, the original press release regarding the objectives and intended methodology of the Hulsey Study:

Quote:

... Once the study is completed, Dr. Hulsey will submit his findings to major peer-reviewed engineering journals.

Transparency and Public Participation

Unlike NIST, which has refused to release all of its modeling data based on the untenable excuse that doing so “might jeopardize public safety,” UAF and AE911Truth will make this study completely open and transparent.

Soon, we will begin posting the process on the website WTC7Evaluation.org, where members of the architecture and engineering communities, as well as the general public, can follow and scrutinize the research as it is being conducted.
...
By making the study open and transparent throughout the entire process, we expect it to attract widespread attention from the engineering community and the broader public, while also enabling interested observers to provide input and feedback. To that end, we enthusiastically invite you to register to become a participant in the study. Dr. Hulsey and the review committee vetting his research greatly welcome your help.

...

I have not watched the entire presentation yet but I am getting the impression that what we ended up with is a whole lot less than what we were told we would be getting.

And, naturally, they will make public all the comments and criticism they receive during the comment period.

__________________Handy responses to conspiracy theorists' claims:
1) "I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." --Charles Babbage
2) "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong." --Wolfgang Pauli
3) "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." --Inigo Montoya

Whether live or prerecorded it eventually was online. Essentially, as far as I could understand... Hulsey used NIST heat inputs, and did some modelling including the stiffeners when were shown on shop drawings at the flr 13 col 19 girder connection and concludes.... no surprise... that the girder could not be moved off the seat and ergo the column could not fail from this as a cause. This is essentially the GerryCan and Tony Sz et al arguments.

At the end of the presentation he did mention he would next be looking at the belt truss and the area of the sub station and vibration effects of the collapsing twins. One wonders what heat/fire inputs he will use to do his future modeling.

This essentially was another refutation of the NIST model. He did not discuss or link visuals to what was taking place inside the tower.

And here is the 911Blogger community already deeming the study "superb" (gerrycan's literal exclamation):http://911blogger.com/news/2017-09-0...lding-collapse
Very revealing how, for example, poster "Satyakaama" cheers: "Not only do I want to see the incrimination of the guilty. I want to see the vindication of people such as Gage, Jones, Ryan, etc. They stayed true." - but does not want to see the data first, and for the study to first pass actual, independent peer review and become an actual refereed journal paper, as promised.

I thought his last 501c3 accounts had ae911truth revenue of 700k. I don't think Richard will be starting a new career any time soon

They submit their tax form for year X no sooner than November X+1, i.e. almost a year later. It's now September X+2 of the last 501c3 account that you have seen - that for 2015.

There is, apparently, at least one large "mystery donor" - at least Gage claimed as recently as May that someone in the background would match any sustaining donations that came in during a certain frame of time.

Why do you assume the revenue will continue at this rate? If the excitement of trutherdom is fading, so will the donations.

Why is Coast to Coast still on the air. CTs will make money for all time.

. if I was the IRS, I would check the big donors and make sure it is not a tax scam, where you donate 100,000, and get it all back but 10,000, thus making 15,000 dollars the IRS did not take, or is it more. Are Gage's rich friends making money the old fashion way.

I'm surprised by the lack of originality; poor innocent me thought there was going to be something new. The arguments are the same we've been discussing for years; I only miss the beam stubs one. The logical fallacy of "NIST is wrong therefore fire didn't do it" is just as we anticipated. The argument against the Weidlinger study is just incredulity. Same old, same old.

__________________Ask questions. Demand answers. But be prepared to accept the answers, or don't ask questions in the first place.

I'm surprised by the lack of originality; poor innocent me thought there was going to be something new. The arguments are the same we've been discussing for years; I only miss the beam stubs one.

There is a very active debate of the Hulsey presentation over at Metabunk. Mick West documented how Hulsey uses several slides, and identical arguments, as he did a year ago and two years ago, as if they haven't found much new in the last year.

Originally Posted by pgimeno

The logical fallacy of "NIST is wrong therefore fire didn't do it" is just as we anticipated. The argument against the Weidlinger study is just incredulity. Same old, same old.

gerrycan has already admited explicitly that Hulsey's conclusion, that fire did not bring down WTC7, is INVALID.
Tony Szamboti and kawika, though very clearly and pointedly asked if they confirm, or disagree with, Hulsey's conclusion refused to defend it any way at all, which must be scored as:Tony Szamboti has expressed that Hulsey's conclusion is INVALID.kawika has expressed that Hulsey's conclusion is INVALID.

That's three (3) AE911Truth apologists who are directly involved with AE911truth calling out Hulsey's conclusion as INVALID, and zero (0) AE911truthers defending Hulsey.

Oystein seems to say whatever he wants and doesn't feel the need to prove it. Below was my answer to him on Metabunk when I saw him make this claim and I am repeating it here.

I most certainly did not agree that Leroy Hulsey's conclusion is invalid. In fact, I stated the opposite and explained how he would have come to that conclusion in post #323.

If the columns never got hot enough to fail then the only way fire could cause a problem is for dislodgement of horizontal members removing lateral support for a significant number of stories (at least five in most cases) to cause the column(s) to be slender enough to buckle and fail. Once you include the items they ignored and omitted the NIST analysis could not show it happened between columns 44 and 79, and every other situation in the building was even less likely to have it occur. It is clear that it is groping at straws trying to say the building collapsed due to fire once you understand these details.

The temperatures Hulsey used on the structural members involved were also worst case for the NIST simulation, so it is nonsense trying to claim any other combination of temperatures may cause it.

Oystein seems to say whatever he wants and doesn't feel the need to prove it. Below was my answer to him on Metabunk when I saw him make this claim and I am repeating it here.

I most certainly did not agree that Leroy Hulsey's conclusion is invalid. In fact, I stated the opposite and explained how he would have come to that conclusion in post #323.

If the columns never got hot enough to fail then the only way fire could cause a problem is for dislodgement of horizontal members removing lateral support for a significant number of stories (at least five in most cases) to cause the column(s) to be slender enough to buckle and fail. Once you include the items they ignored and omitted the NIST analysis could not show it happened between columns 44 and 79, and every other situation in the building was even less likely to have it occur. It is clear that it is groping at straws trying to say the building collapsed due to fire once you understand these details.

The temperatures Hulsey used on the structural members involved were also worst case for the NIST simulation, so it is nonsense trying to claim any other combination of temperatures may cause it.

16 years and counting and still no 9/11 cd evidence. Why am I not surprised?

Once you include the items they ignored and omitted the NIST analysis could not show it happened between columns 44 and 79, and every other situation in the building was even less likely to have it occur.

16 years and counting and still no 9/11 cd evidence. Why am I not surprised?

Since Tony cannot (or will not) even attempt to back up his position by showing the boundary conditions, applied loads, and temperature assumptions at the beams/joists/columns he has issues with, I certainly am nor surprised at virtually anything he says...

__________________"Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."
"I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriadhttp://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275

Oystein seems to say whatever he wants and doesn't feel the need to prove it. Below was my answer to him on Metabunk when I saw him make this claim and I am repeating it here.

I most certainly did not agree that Leroy Hulsey's conclusion is invalid. In fact, I stated the opposite and explained how he would have come to that conclusion in post #323.

If the columns never got hot enough to fail then the only way fire could cause a problem is for dislodgement of horizontal members removing lateral support for a significant number of stories (at least five in most cases) to cause the column(s) to be slender enough to buckle and fail. Once you include the items they ignored and omitted the NIST analysis could not show it happened between columns 44 and 79, and every other situation in the building was even less likely to have it occur. It is clear that it is groping at straws trying to say the building collapsed due to fire once you understand these details.

The temperatures Hulsey used on the structural members involved were also worst case for the NIST simulation, so it is nonsense trying to claim any other combination of temperatures may cause it.

Fire caused the collapse, you don't have evidence for your silent explosives, or your magical thermite. Hulsey is a failed conspiracy theorist, or a grant hog who fooled you, and Richard Gage to gain money to buy computers, disk drives and fund a fantasy study based on making you and Gage happy campers in the fantasy world of CD.

CD is a sick fantasy mocking the murder of thousands by 19 nuts who were fooled by UBL, like you and Hulsey are fooled by 9/11 truth. Hulsey claims are BS, not much you can do about it. Got Evidence? No

16 years and the failed 9/11 truth movement has speculation based on dumbed down BS. 9/11 truth conspiracy engineers could have earned a PhD in structural engineering, but they doubled down on BS and got a PhD in woo.

Hulsey - "fire did not make WTC7 collapse" Is the study done? This is the best 9/11 truth can do, failed claims, speculation, and fantasy CD.

Hulsey claims it was not fire before he finished his study, claimed it was not fire based on his "calculation", on a study not done. What a joke, what an embarrassment for the school.

I watched the whole presentation live. What a waste of time. Hulsey didn’t offer anything new, just a different twist on the same old truther lies. It shameful that this group continues to make money off the dead souls of all the people who died on 9/11.

I watched the whole presentation live. What a waste of time. Hulsey didn’t offer anything new, just a different twist on the same old truther lies. It shameful that this group continues to make money off the dead souls of all the people who died on 9/11.

Many of his presentation slides - including the conclusions! - are identical to what he presented a year ago, and a good number even identical to what he presented two years ago!

The project was originally announced as 2 years, $200K, 3 men (Hulsey and 2 assistants). Very quietly, one of the three men has left the team, and cost and time went up to 3 years, $300K - without explanation as far as I am aware.

Some of the work, including some of the graphics and calculations, weren't done by Hulsey. For example, slides 44-48 are originally Tony Szamboti's work, he first showed me it in January 2016.